William James on Religion and Sacrifice
William James, Harvard Professor of Psychology and Philosophy, was invited to give the Gifford Lectures at Edinburg University. These were published as The Varieties of Religious Experience in 1902.
My friend Marilyn Seven alerted me to a provocative passage recently:
". . . when all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of religion, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the religious life, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary (his ital.); and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital significance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill."
James’ point about religion is interesting. All human beings, he suggests, share the experience of “dependence” on the universe. What does James have in mind here? On the most basic and fundamental level, we are at the mercy of the universe. We might protest that we are free in various ways - free to move about, become this or that, change our minds on any topic.
Well, yes. But James’ point is that these active forms of life do nothing to alter the basic posture of human beings before the universe. And that posture he describes as one of “sacrifices and surrenders of some sort.” This is a feature of reality about which you have no choice. You are not free to opt out. The universe is bigger than you. It will outlast you and engulf you. This is a feature of life experience that is human. It is shared fully by religious and nonreligious persons alike. Everyone “submits” and “surrenders.”
So what’s the difference between being religious or not? It is something like a posture or attitude on James’ account. A “state of mind.” Everyone, simply by dint of being human, lives a life that is an enacted response to the overwhelming-ness of the universe. For the nonreligious person, the surrender and sacrifice are borne, perhaps even without complaint. Yet James suggests that all nonreligious persons have a largely negative view of this sacrifice.
For the religious person, surrender and sacrifice are “positively espoused.” The religious person is so open to the posture of sacrifice that she adds more on top, what James calls “unnecessary givings up.”
The best a nonreligious person can hope for is a life of non-complaint. But a religious person can hope for more, the “increase of happiness.” This is a decidedly functional account of religion. James isn’t arguing that religion is true. He’s arguing that it works -- it functions well in the life of the practitioner. Religion is a positive way to relate to our experience of being overwhelmed. Everyone is made of organic matter. We can’t keep ourselves alive for long. We’re frail and vulnerable, subject to disease, genetic mutations, and potentially life-threatening accidents. Better to face all this with an “easy and felicitous” state of mind than to face it with a grim reluctance.
On one level, James’ proposal is brilliant. To imagine religion as a particular kind of response to a widely shared human experience is compelling to me. Whether we should name that widely shared experience “absolute dependence” on the universe is another question.
On the other hand, I am not sure that the best nonreligious persons can do is to live “without complaint.” I know many of them who are happy. There are atheists who don’t think the universe owes them something extra. They know they’re finite and fragile. They’re happy for the life they’ve got and are trying to make the best of it.
Regardless, this kind of analysis (along with that of Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and the great theologians who engage them in conversation) is far richer than what we are offered by the New Atheists.
My contention with the author here is that he seems to have redefined the word "religious". With this new definition couldn't anyone - even atheists - be called religious? This "dependence on the universe" seems to me to represent perhaps a sense of wonder - something common to human experience - the same sense that Einstein had when he spoke of "god". What the New Atheists are countering, however, is not this sense of wonderment or even an understanding and acceptance of the fact that all humans "sacrifice and surrender". Indeed, I find some of the New Atheist authors - Dawkins and Harris, for example - to be some of the most eloquent scientists. Their passion for science and wonder at the universe bubbles with more fervor than many theists. They also make the argument that learning to cope is a necessary part of psychological health. What the New Atheists counter are the unreasonable assertions of ancient miracles and divine moral laws handed down from heaven. Now, if the author intends to say that religion makes death easier because the sacrifice is happily given for hope of the afterlife - (perhaps it merits saying that this is not much of a sacrifice as theists believe there is still more life on the other side of death) - does this then mean that coping must involve belief on some unfounded "truth"? Isn't this the same hope that functions in the Islamic extremist's mind who flies a plane into a building, eagerly making the sacrifice to meet his 42 virgins on the other side? Still, I too believe on unfounded statements. I believe my life is purposed and meaningful. I suppose here I understand that it is I who imbues my life with this purpose and meaning instead of attributing this act to a deity. I guess in the end we must all form beliefs about the subjective, non-absolute truths of purpose, meaning, and morality. To my eye, they all come from the same place - James' might call it "religion", but it is certainly not the kind of religion that needs a god.
ReplyDeleteHi Taylor:
ReplyDelete42 Virgins on the other side . . . hmmm . . . sorry, quick fantasy sidebar!
I think you're right that James works with an expansive definition of "religion." I suppose I rather like this approach. Yes, it makes the religious orientation something all human persons share, at least formally. Religious or not, we're all up against we-know-not-what. But call it death or God - it's bigger than we are.
On "wonder" - and that most atheist scientists are better at it than theists, point granted. But I don't think "wonder" is an adequate translation for James' notion of "dependence on the universe."
Is religious faith a way of coping with life that involves entrusting oneself to "unfounded" truth? Yes. (You know, Taylor, I am going to continue this therapy to help extract you and the New Atheists from the Enlightement!). The Enlightenment attempt to "found" or "ground" a religious way of life in evidence is over, at least for most of us.
I too believe your life has purpose. And part of that purpose is continuing to lead me to the city's greatest coffee. Carry on, my friend.
Haha! Great response. We shall find some more great coffee soon. In rereading, I do feel that I was off about the "sense of wonder". Maybe that notion somehow plays into what James is addressing at some deeper level, I don't know.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion that we barely got into the other night just before it got too late: the Enlightenment. I think we need to continue this discussion sometime. I find the principles of rationality to be fundamental to our understanding of the universe. But not only to our individual understandings, but also to our collective understanding. We might have rational reasons to vote for political parties, and given the same information, we might all come to different conclusions - and understandably so! These are not absolute truths. But when it comes to our understanding of certain scientific "truths", it is not just the question of "did everyone get the right answer together?" The followup question is more important: "Does the answer work?" Does it help us to predict and/or manipulate elements of the natural world consistently? I guess the way it seems to me at the moment is that modernist thinking works. And that the influence of individual biases and personal experiences can be rationally understood and rationally considered within that modernist framework. It seems (to me, at least in this moment) like postmodernism is just philosophical posturing that tends to ignore the facts that planes fly, computers work, and medicine heals - all because of our understanding of "absolute truths" which we have uncovered through Enlightenment-born thinking.
These thoughts are kind of just spilling out of me right now. So it'll take some time for me to consider this topic more.
Looking forward to our next coffee adventure and conversation.
Taylor